In 1970 minimum wage was $1.60/hour, equating to about $3.3k a year. A typical mortgage was about $126/month. Car payment, around $100. You weren't raising a family and saving on minimum. Median income was about 3x that for a family, so you could definitely raise a family and save at the median. Note, these come from querying AI, but they match my recollections as a child a few years later.
Today, family income is up about 10x, but costs have risen much more than that.
In my opinion the two greatest factors on the reason, in the US at least, for the changes, and not having children were - birth control became widely available in the US in the early 70s, and women entered the workforce in great numbers. This greatly increased the amount of family income, but costs quickly rose to basically eat up all the extra income.
So in the 2010s I was working in game development for a company that mostly did Facebook and mobile games. I'm an early bird, I would usually be in the office at 6-6:30am. The next person would show up usually about 10-15 minutes before the 10am standup, so I'd have 3 hours of quiet productivity.
Generally I'd get all my deliverables done by the time that anyone else showed up, so after standup I'd just circulate and see what everyone was working on, and if I saw someone who was frustrated, I'd see if they wanted help. This let me help train and teach the kids, which I really enjoyed.
That's the one reason I don't like fully remote/zoom jobs. I really enjoy the interaction and the ability to teach.
The Barnes and Noble bookstore I occasionally shop at has a second floor that is about half full of nothing but games, legos, puzzles. I honestly think they sell more of that than books these days.
Their strategy is now about 1/3 of the store dedicated to toys/puzzle/legos and I think it’s a brilliant strategy. I can walk into the store, browse books while the kid is exploring decently engaging toys. It’s a win for the store and myself as I can walk out with a book or two for myself, a good potentially educational toy, and a Lego kit for us to complete together. They got us good
So the West still does have a fish sauce in common use, although one that's not nearly as strong as the eastern variants. Worcestershire sauce was an attempt to recreate an Indian fish sauce, and to this day contains anchovies.
I found the 'not common' comment in the original article quite confounding. It is somewhat specific, yes But the general sense "anchovies and anchovy paste adds umami" is really strongly established. So it's become much more specific, but it still exists.
"sauce" is such an imprecise concept. Fish Sauce is a condiment. Anchovy paste is often used as a condiment/additive e.g. on a ceaser salad, or to perk up a pizza.
Fish sauce is added to soups, to dishes during cooking as well as at the end. Dressing a papaya salad with a fish sauce heavy dressing is only one way of using it, we use it to make dipping sauces.
We also use Anchovy paste as an ingredient in other dipping sauces, and dressings for salads. And we add it to meat dishes much as worcestershire sauce is: given its an ingredient along with Tamarind, it's much the same thing.
In Britain, it's a posh paste to spread on toast, much as we use Vegemite or Marmite. Anchovy toast was an afternoon tea thing.
I think, it's pretty sauce like. If not, I think it's a fundamental ingredient of sauces people reach over to use directly.
Back in the 90s and the early aughts Simmons was on my “automatically buy everything he writes” list. But it seemed like he had stopped writing. But then I happened to browse Barnes and Noble beyond the SF&F and horror aisles and discovered he had been writing crime novels. And they were good.
I think if he had ever decided to write romance novels I would have probably enjoyed those as well.
Eh, not really? If it's a legit company who provides services to various governments, they're going to pay you, they're going to report the income to the government, you'll get a 1099 for contract/consulting, and you'll pay your taxes on the legit income. No red flags. Assuming they're legit and not currently sanctioned by the US government that is.
In 1993 I paid a shade under $10k for a new Chevy S10 where the only options were AC (not actually optional in Texas) and CD player in the radio. It was manual transmission, V6. Indexed to inflation that would be, what, about $24k today if regs allowed them to be built?
If it existed they would fill every rural high school parking lot in the south. Allow them to exist and someone will build them.
My dad paid like $14k new for his pretty basic 2004 tacoma. It had the frame recall not very long ago but the bumpers are all rust pitted. Still doesn’t stop strangers from regularly giving him cold offers in the parking lot for close to what he paid new 20 years ago. People desperately want these trucks.
It’s not just you. I’ve known several people who lost their desire to drink beer specifically on these drugs. I didn’t personally experience it, but then I am more of a whiskey guy.
I can give you an example of when I am glad I rebased. There have been many times I have been working on a feature that was going to take some time to finish. In that case my general workflow is to rebase against main every day or two. It lets me keep track of changes and handle conflicts early and makes the eventual merge much simpler. As for debugging I’ve never personally had to do this, but I imagine git bisect would probably work better with rebased, squashed commits.
They kind of spoke to it. Rebasing to bring in changes from main to a feature branch which is a bit longer running keeps all your changes together.
All the commits for your feature get popped on top the commits you brought in from main. When you are putting together your PR you can more easily squash your commits together and fix up your commit history before putting it out for review.
It is a preference thing for sure but I fall into the atomic, self contained, commits camp and rebase workflows make that much cleaner in my opinion. I have worked with both on large teams and I like rebase more but each have their own tradeoffs
Yes but specifically with a rebase merge the commits aren’t interleaved with the commits brought in from mainline like they are with a merge commit.
EDIT: I may have read more into GPs post but on teams that I have been on that used merge commits we did this flow as well where we merged from main before a PR. Resolving conflicts in the feature branch. So that workflow isn’t unique to using rebase.
But using rebase to do this lets you later more easily rewrite history to cleanup the commits for the feature development.
You'll still get interleaved commits. If I work on a branch for a week, committing daily and merging daily from main, when I merge to main, git log will show one commit of mine, then 3 from someone else, then another of mine, etc. The real history of the main branch is that all my commits went in at the same time, after seven days, even if some of them were much older. Rebase tells the real story in this case, merge does not.
I used hg (mercurial) before git. Every time I see someone make an argument like yours I think "only because git's merge/branch model is bad and so you need hacks to make it acceptable".
Git won, which is why I've been using it for more than 10 years, but that doesn't mean it was ever best, it was just most popular and so the rest of the eco system makes it worth it accepting the flaws (code review tools and CI system both have much better git support - these are two critical things that if you use anything else will work against you).
Not only is git not the best, but one of the central value props of coding agents and chatbots used for programming is not having to use git in order to interact with free code.
FWIW I have used git bisect with merged commits and it works just as well (unless the commit is enormous... nothing like settling on a sprawling 100 file change commit as the culprit... good argument for discrete commits, but then it wouldn't matter if it were rebased or merged)
Today, family income is up about 10x, but costs have risen much more than that.
In my opinion the two greatest factors on the reason, in the US at least, for the changes, and not having children were - birth control became widely available in the US in the early 70s, and women entered the workforce in great numbers. This greatly increased the amount of family income, but costs quickly rose to basically eat up all the extra income.
reply